Main menu

Ed Brubaker Interview

Ed Brubaker Interview

Ed Brubaker has a very nice hat. He originally thought our interview was a Mark Millar prank because I asked him about writing a Batman porno story. I was serious, and he sincerely answered the question, which is pretty cool.

Last time I looked, he was on Wizard's top ten comics writers, and that's pretty cool. He's also known as the writer who killed Captain America. Yep, he's that guy. I remember that story making the newspapers and I'd hate to pigeon-hole Ed into that role, so I'll also say he's the writer who killed Captain America, but he also wrote The Authority, X-Men, Batman, Daredevil, Catwoman, and that Law and Order in Gotham series Gotham Central. He's a writing machine and ex juvenile delinquent who likes to go bowling on his rare occurrences of free time, Church.

Ed Brubaker: Does Chuck Palahniuk know who I am?

Garrett Faber: I don't know personally, The Cult is like Chuck's headquarters, but the main editor, Dennis wants it to be more of a giant writers retreat, with other writers being interviewed and being involved so it's more than just Chuck's site, it's a resource. Why, do you hate Chuck? Wanna punch him in the face? We can talk about that in the interview if you want. :)

EB: I would never punch anyone. I'm an adult. No, I'm a fan. I just never heard of the site. I just know that Chuck got beat up really badly at some point, so I wanted to be sure he knew I didn't want to hit him. ;)

GF: Where are you from dude? What was your childhood like?

EB: I was a Navy brat, raised moving around from Virginia and Maryland, back in the late 60s when my dad was in Vietnam, to Gitmo after that, and then to San Diego, until he retired. Like a lot of kids who moved around a lot at a young age, I was pretty lonely and solitary, and thus very into cartoons and comics. So, I'm basically from all over. For the past 18 years, I've moved back and forth between San Francisco and Seattle, where I've been living again now for about four years, and will probably stay forever, since we bought a house this time.

GF: Have you ever been in the presence of a Vampire? Literally or metaphorically?

EB: Just emotional ones. My last girlfriend before I met my wife was definitely one of those. She could suck the life out of anyone in just a few days, I'm pretty sure. And she wasn't a bad person, even, it was just her nature. Like the scorpion and the frog. I'm always the frog in that analogy for some reason.

GF: How did you get into the comics world as a writer?

EB: Like a lot of my friends, I started out doing my own comics, writing and drawing a semi-autobiographical series called Lowlife. Not long after that, my friend Eric Shanower was looking for a contemporary idea to draw, since all his stuff is either historical fiction (his current book Age of Bronze is about the Trojan War) or fantasy. So I asked if I could write a mystery for him, and he for some reason said yes. From then on, I've mostly made a living in comics, and for the last ten years, as a writer exclusively. So, I got in by accident, basically, which is how most of the people I know who do this got here. We were just doing our own stuff and started getting offers that we didn't want to say no to.

GF: Whats a good way to pitch a story to say, DC or something? How could a writer go and write Batman?

EB: I have no idea. Like I said, I came in on the coattails of an in-demand artist, and was lucky enough to write some mystery stories that attracted some attention and awards nominations, and that led to more work. I think if you're starting out hoping to write Batman, you're really going about it the wrong way, and it's going to be a very long and hard road for you. You have to start out just wanting to make comics. An editor is always going to be more impressed by a good story that just stands on its own, then they are by the 1000th Batman idea they get that week. So, I always tell aspiring comics writers to just write a short story that has no company-owned characters, and get someone good to draw it, and then show that to editors, so they'll see that you can write a story and how it looks in comics form. It's really hard to tell from a script.

GF: What do you do for fun these days?

EB: Sometimes I go bowling, though my wife has turned me into a bit of a germaphobe, so I'm thinking about getting my own ball for that. Thinking of sticking your fingers into the same holes that some guy who was just holding his cock and pissing in the bowling alley bathroom is kind of disgusting, especially since you always end up eating fries or something when you bowl. It's like that movie where the guy explains why he doesn't eat the peanuts in the bowl at the bar. Other than that, I'm not young anymore, and I write for a living. So, outings are rare. Usually it's to visit friends or to go to a movie. The most fun I've had in years was going to Kauai last fall.

GF: How is the comic book world? Is it like a fraternity where you and Warren Ellis and Jim Lee are all at pugs, swiggin brewskis and talkin about broads?

EB: Not really. At conventions there's probably stuff like that, to some extent, but I tend to avoid that stuff and just get together with a few friends instead, at conventions. But almost everyone I know works in either comics or film or TV, at this point, so there is definitely a community feel to it. I have not heard anyone ever say the word "broad" though. But I bet Darwyn Cooke would, but he'd probably be being ironic.

GF: What's it like to write some of the most well known comics ever? Was the pressure on? Did you stress about writing a damn good story line?

EB: The biggest comic I've ever done was the Death of Captain America issue, and for some reason I wrote that so far ahead of when it got published, that I had no idea it would end up being a big deal or get lots of press all over the world, so I just wrote it like any other issue. I'm really glad I did, too, because had I known it would be like it was - a nightmare of publicity and press and outrage - I probably never would have been able to write. But I put pressure on myself, mostly, for everything I write. I always try to push myself to do something new or something different, whether it's on my biggest book - Like Captain America - or on my more cult-like stuff - like Criminal. The pressure is to not suck, and to keep producing work that people want to read and that is entertaining and deserves to exist.

GF: With a character like Batman, did you find it hard to do things with him that hasn't been done before?

EB: I just tried not to think about what had or hadn't been done with him, and to just do things that seemed interesting to me. But to some extent, writing a character that appears in so many other places is really difficult, because when you write these company-owned characters, you have to lie to yourself that they're yours, so that you can make it important. When there are three other books starring the same character, that can be really hard to do.

GF: So you know about Chuck Palahniuk's tale of getting in that fight that eventually inspired Fight Club, what else do you know about Chucky P? What's your favorite Palahniuk book?

EB: I know it's a cliche, but probably Fight Club. I read that not long before I saw the movie, and it really kicked my ass. What else do I know? I heard that he wrote Fight Club in public places, like bars and cafes, and I know he's a fan of David Mack's work. Other than that, not much. What does Chuck know about me? That's the real question.

GF: Speaking of books, what are your top five favorite novels, and graphic novels?

EB: I'm not much for top lists. I like a ton of novels. If I had to choose, I'd say that Steve Erickson's Arc D'x is one of my favorite novels, as is Ross Macdonald's The Goodbye Look, and Milan Kundera's the Joke, and Dan J. Marlowe's The Name of the Game is Death, and David Simon's Homicide, a Year on the Killing Streets. For GNs, I really couldn't pick a top five. Right now I like Scalped a lot, and Casanova, and Powers. I'll read anything by Joe Matt or Chester Brown. Chris Ware's new Rusty Brown story is great. Anything Dan Clowes does is generally great. V for Vendetta and From Hell are both amazing books and not so great movies. I am really fond of the first 30 issues of Love and Rockets. Like I said, it's impossible to narrow it down. I read a lot of comics.

GF: Out of everything you've ever writen, which would you most like to see as a movie?

EB: I have no preference, really. Probably one of the two Criminal books that are out - Coward or Lawless. I'd be happy to have any of my stuff get made, though, and incredibly happy to take the money involved. I always have a few things that are close to happening lately.

GF: Are you still a crazy workaholic?

EB: Only because I have to be. I am really starting to look forward to a few years from now, when I can hopefully slow down a little on the deadline pressure. But I imagine I'll always write, and probably everyday, just not for the length of time I do currently every day.

GF: Are you any good at karaoke? Can you rip into a bad ass rendition of "Bad, Bad Leroy Brown?"

EB: The only time I've done karaoke, I sang a Merle Haggard song. We went to this place here in town a while back, and I was going to sing, but the people there were like professionals or something, and I didn't have the nerve. If only I still got drunk. Still, I heard the best version of Mack the Knife ever. The guy didn't even use the mic, he just staggered around the stage and belted it out.

GF: What kind of music do you like?

EB: I'm a music wimp. I like stuff like CocoRosie, and American Music Club, and Will Oldham. Stuff that I can listen to and write. I like lyrics, too. There's that old theory that if you want to make a tape for someone, the first thing you need to know is which they prefer, the Stones or the Beatles. And while I love Her Satanic Majesty's Request, I'll always pick the Beatles. Which means I like Big Star more than Black Sabbath. And I like Belle and Sebastian much more than the White Stripes. I was a big fan of Gorky's Zygotic Mynci. And I loved that Mark Kozelek record where he covered AC/DC. I like a lot of late 60s and early 70s soul and funk, though - Steve Wonder and Marvin Gaye and Funkadelic. What's Goin' On will always be one of the best albums.

GF: Have you had any brushes with the law? Did you hussle and go to juvy?

EB: Yeah, when I was a kid I was a bad bag guy. A drug addict and a thief. I never went to juvie, but I did spent a few days in County lock-up in San Diego in the felony tank. That pretty much scared my shit way straight.

GF: Whats your middle name?

EB: Schleuss. It's my mother's maiden name.

GF: What made you decide to kill Captain America? I actually remember it made newspapers and me and Kareem Black were talking about it, how does that feel? Did feel any guilt for killing an icon like that?

EB: I can't remember anymore. I think it's just the way that the story was going. And really, no one writes an icon, you have to write a character. And killing a character is no big deal, it's just part of the story.

GF: When's the last time you got some ass? Was it good? Are you adventurous when it comes to sex or do you have a patented formula that never fails? I actually got some last night for the first time in a month it was pretty damn amazing, I was in awe because sometimes the best part of sex is just watching it happen to you, do you concur?

EB: I'll just avoid the first part of that, because I don't think my wife would appreciate me talking about that stuff much. But I sometimes think the best part of sex is the moments before it, actually. The desire for it. Not that there's anything bad to be said about the actual fucking part of it, believe me. It's like that old Woody Allen quote about a bad orgasm. I've never heard of one of those - even the worst one I've had was right on the money.

GF: If there was like, a Batman Porno comic with Batman involved in this hardcore threeway with Catwoman and Harley Quinn, how confident would you be about writing it?

EB: Pretty confident.

GF: Would Batman use gadgets or his keen intellect?

EB: I think it would be the ladies in charge there, probably, and I'm sure there'd be plenty of gadgets.

GF: What are fun things to do in Seattle. What are some hot spots that are rad to chill at?

EB: I'm 41 years old, and I write for a living. The last time I left the house at night was to do a ridealong with the cops.

EB: My home is pretty modest, a renovated 1920s bungalow style house. My coolest possession is probably my office. My wife, who can literally do anything if she reads how to in a book (she's like Joe90 or something) completely redid it while I was out of town, building this great wainscoting and a shelf around the wall, and carpet it. She even alphabetized all my books by category. I spend most of my days in here, so it's great that it's like my perfect little hideaway.

GF: Whats the last big thing you've bought?

EB: A new PC computer, probably. Got stuck with Vista, but the computer is about as big as a shoebox and silent and fast, so that's a nice trade-off.

GF: What was it like when you lost your virginity? Was it awkward and weird or was it magical and special?

EB: It was awful and weird, and I lied for months and told my friends I didn't do it, which is the opposite of how you're supposed to be when you're a teenager. I was very naive, though. I also believed that all my guy friends didn't jerk off.

GF: How was losing your V-Card awkward and weird?

EB: I'd rather not get into it. It was just unfun.

GF: Whats your favorite sin?

EB: Honestly, probably sloth. Maybe mixed with a bit of lust, just to keep it interesting. But if I had enough money, I think I'd love to spend a few years lazing about and just enjoying things, and not be so caught up in deadlines and schedules and stuff.

GF: Whats your favorite crime?

EB: RAPE. No, just kidding. As far as writing about them goes, probably drug smuggling or armed robbery.

GF: Whats your favorite Depeche Mode song?

EB: Planet Earth.

GF: Are you a political person? Are you going to vote this year? Who for?

EB: I'm politically aware and actively informed, to my detriment, sometimes. I read a lot of news from all over the world. Yes, I always vote. Informed voting is the foundation of whatever's left of our democracy. Emphasis on informed. I'll vote for Obama or against McCain.

GF: Jellyfish or Giraffe?

EB: Giraffe.

GF: Did you ever feel the urge to join the Navy like your dad, or some other branch of the armed forces?

EB: No. I hate taking orders or dealing with authority. And growing up on military bases around other officers families, it doesn't give you the best view of the military and how it's run. These guys had nothing but complaints about the system and the politicians.

GF: How do you feel about that Spiderman story arc "One More Day"?

EB: I don't really have an opinion. I think it was a good idea for the character, overall.

GF: Why not make the Captain America outfit black? Every outfit should be black!

EB: Okay. Sure.

GF: If you were to write a comic book about a famous rapper today, who would it be? Little Weezy?

I PMed Tim already about this, and am allowing him to repost his comment. It had to do less with CENSORSHIP!!! (OH MY GOD!!!!), and more with tact. There was a good chance I was going to be meeting Ed Brubaker at Comic-Con this weekend. The last thing I needed the guy reading in the very first comment here, was what a shitty interview he had been given. I apologize for that, but that's just sometimes the reality of this website and PR. I could sit here all day and say it will never happen again, but I'd be lying. (hey, I'm posting this all publically here though, right?)

As far as the interview goes, I agree that Garrett has a tendency to ask some assanine questions. And quite a few of them made me cringe. But that's just his style. You never know what he's going to ask next. I DO, however, feel that he got in some very good questions for Ed, especially in regards to breaking into the industry and what it's like writing for some major comic characters.

With Garrett, I have to take the bad with the good. The guy's a workhorse, and he lands interviews that others don't. Give him time and I'm sure he'll improve with each one. Or, put your money where your mouth is and get involved. ;)

The last thing I needed the guy reading in the very first comment here, was what a shitty interview he had been given.

Just reading the interview itself would have done that, with or without the comment.

What bothers me about these interviews is the lack of respect they seem to have towards whoevers being interviewed. Some of the questions are just plain juvenile. Now I know this place can get as juvenile as it gets, but the interviews really give this place a more public face. Someone that's a huge Ed Brubaker fan might come on here and read that and just be completely turned off of ever being associated with a Chuck book or this site because of the terrible interview.

Whoever's doing the interview, when it's put up on here, they are pretty much acting as a voice for The Cult, for all of us. At least that's how I feel. I mean, you still want 'em to have their own voice and personality doing the interview, it's just a line that needs to be straddled. That's why whenever I read an interview like this it hurts and is embarrassing. It's like a family member hanging all our dirty laundry out for everyone to see. You just want to grab those skidmarked undies off the line and rush 'em in the house.

You're right, there's some very good questions in there. I thought the vampire one was pretty bad, but brubaker gave such a good answer to it, that it became a good question. But you can build up all these good questions and just have one completely inappropriate off-hand remark tear every one of them down. The worst part would be what everyone takes away from reading it.

I don't know. I love the interviews, I can't wait to see who gets interviewed next, but, come on! We need a little QC (quality control) to go along with that PR.

As far as the interview goes, I agree that Garrett has a tendency to ask some assanine questions. And quite a few of them made me cringe. But that's just his style. You never know what he's going to ask next. I DO, however, feel that he got in some very good questions for Ed, especially in regards to breaking into the industry and what it's like writing for some major comic characters.

It's great that you feel he got some very good questions Dennis. But the point is that other cult members should be able to state their opinion too.

First of all: I never got to see the censored comment, so I don’t know how constructive or non constructive it was. But even if the comment just read "Shitty interview." even then, it’s still a valid opinion. If you want to endorse more constructive comments, give him a warning or your own moral argument against his comment, instead of applying censorship.

What kind of PR do you promote if The Cult, home to one of the most controversial authors ever, censors its members opinions?

If I was a writer with his own fan site, and they'd apply censorship, I would take serious offense.

How does Chuck Palahniuk feel about that kind of censorship?

Or better yet, how do you think Ed Brubaker would feel about it, if he found out? What happened to all feedback is good feedback? When Chuck suggests for his members to go to sports bars to read their works what kind of feedback isn’t he already preparing you for?

Or when Chuck says, forget chasing peoples acceptance, forget being liked or loved, aim for being remembered by shocking and telling a really good story. Any controversial post, book or article, good or bad, will run the risk of being badly recieved. And it 's constructed to do so: anything nonconforming aims at being challenging.

I don’t agree with Nathaniel either, I’m a huge fan of South-Park-culture and everything else that’s Juvenile and extremely embarrassing and ridiculing. And even if I didn't agree with the Interviews construction, I would still think the interviewer shouldn’t be censored.

Do you think Chuck would like to censor people in Amazon.com’s comments who think his writing is juvenile and out of line? If those people joined The Cult, to bring a different point of view to the table, would you censor them Dennis?

There is a huge cult-warning when you sum up the voice of the interviewer or the voice of the commentator as the voice of all the members. You don't only diminish the commentator's or the interviewer's uniqueness off them, but you eradicate all of the other member’s unique voices too. Every member should be free to express their own voice without having to represent anyone else but themselves. Every member should be free to his/her own style, and his/her own belief system. And every member should be free to change belief system as often as he/she wants.

And anyone reading the comments or the articles, be it Ed Brubaker, Chuck or the Pope, they all have to regard the comments and the articles as some individuals voice and opinion and not the entire sites voice and opinion. And if they don't do that distinction, it's their problem not The Cults or Dennis or Chucks.

I know the name of the site is "The Cult" but such conformity, (as the one Nathaniel suggests), will only kill the creative and controversial aspects that make all writing in general, but minimalism (Chuck’s school of writing) in specific, so much better than all traditional rules and political correctness [read: 99 percent of all other books published] that comes from institutions and conformist writers.

This post might sound dramatic, and it’s written so intentionally. Censorship, in any format, is [ALWAYS] a big deal.

I apologize for that, but that's just sometimes the reality of this website and PR. I could sit here all day and say it will never happen again, but I'd be lying. (hey, I'm posting this all publically here though, right?)

That’s really disappointing to hear Dennis. It’s like China telling its citizens "yes we will censor your Internet, but at least we are doing so publically."

Dennis, i understand your reason in taking down the comment, I never considered it a censorship issue. You run the site therefore you can do as you chose. What my issue is that you posted an interview that was ridiculous, ill prepared, and disrespectful to a creator whom is a class act and true talent.

It angers me that given the chance to talk to Brubaker this was what came from that. Ed's professionalism showed through because he continued to answer questions that were assanine and not worth his time nor readers of this site.

"Have you ever been in the prescence of a vampire?"

"When was the last time you got a piece of ass?"

"What was it like when you lost your V-Card?"

"If there was a Batman porno..."

You are the person who allows this content on your site. I hope you show better judgement over what you allow your contributors to post because this interview poorly reflects this site and all of us who support it. If you want more creators to interact with the Cult interviews like this will not help. If you were going to be in contact with Brubaker, maybe holding off on posting the interview or whatever might have helped, if it was a timing issue.

Also, for the record I did contact Dennis a year or so ago in regards to a interview I did with Craig Davidson, guy who's work Chuck blurbed. For whatever reason getting it up here didn't work, no harm no foul. So, in terms of putting my time where my mouth is, it's been done.

I think this, like the last kangaroo court we held on Garrett, just points out one thing: there are quality questions cluttered in with a disjointed interview. This, like the other one, read like a first draft to me. The only thing it REALLY needs is an editor to go through and clean out the chaff. You could make this interview read like a Rolling Stone classic with a firm enough editor.

As for censorship, yeah, it's Dennis's baby, and honestly, pulling someone's negative opinion, not that big a deal since this is not a Forum article but a Site Feature Interview. It's kind of the flagship of where things are going with the site, so it should be edited as Dennis sees fit (but so should the interviews!)

bartleby78: You are the person who allows this content on your site. I hope you show better judgement over what you allow your contributors to post because this interview poorly reflects this site and all of us who support it. If you want more creators to interact with the Cult interviews like this will not help. If you were going to be in contact with Brubaker, maybe holding off on posting the interview or whatever might have helped, if it was a timing issue.

I totally agree that it’s Dennis job to regulate featured articles. And he should himself, or with his staff, or with the consensus of some cult members, or with whoever he chooses, allow the kind of content he (and whoever he decides to decide with) wants there. However, if the article is good or not is a matter of taste. I liked the interview. Get off your high horses. The fact that Brubaker hated authorities and taking orders makes it even more applaud-able, that Garrett didn’t approach him with super serious questions or as an authority that you should worship.

monkeywright: As for censorship, yeah, it's Dennis's baby, and honestly, pulling someone's negative opinion, not that big a deal since this is not a Forum article but a Site Feature Interview. It's kind of the flagship of where things are going with the site, so it should be edited as Dennis sees fit (but so should the interviews!)

I don’t agree, I think it’s a HUGE deal. As I’ve already stated.

Sure, Dennis can do whatever he likes with the comments. I know how admin rights work. But it doesn’t mean he should. He could set the settings so he has to approve all comments himself (or whoever he decides to do it). Then he would avoid any uncomfortable comments in the "flagship" section being read by "outsiders" (OH NO!) before he could censor it.. Still, doesn’t mean he should do that.

I remember Warren Ellis (comic writer; transmetropolitan, authority, planetary etc) had a forum a couple years back. There he had written in the about section (and I’m paraphrasing): "this is not a democratic forum, its run like a dictatorship, and I’m Stalin. I will edit however I please."

But this is a community for writer’s right? Not a conformity and unanimous worship site? The site supposedly aims towards endorsing writing (critical and non-critical) doesn’t it? Isn’t it wrong to make a distinction between what’s written in the forum and what’s written as a comment on a featured article? (As I’ve mentioned: the article in itself, is regulated to begin with, so I don’t argue with that part being content approved by administrators)

The fact that Dennis PM:ed the guy "allowing" him to repost his post, makes me feel the censoring part didn’t feel right to Dennis either. But then he says it’s "PR", like it’s a natural law: the obvious way the market works, a reality we should bow down to, and that it will happen again, and we should just deal with it. Or get the hell out.

If Dennis is more inclined towards the latter part of his statement, maybe he should just disable comments on the "flagship" featured articles. I personally think that is a better option in contrast to screening for criticism and then deleting it.

95% of the forums are not geared towards writing, non-conformity, or...well, anything in general. You discuss the author. You discuss his books. You have general discussion, which is a place where the Culties run wild and free. If you have a chance, stop by the fan submission area and read the general population's reaction to most of what comes in. Writing is not encouraged, unless in your language encouraged means mercilessly punished and roundly discouraged. THEN, you have the Writer's Workshop, where all kinds of writing is welcome.The Workshop is the safe haven for expression. And you'll still take an ass-whooping there, though it will actually be constructive.

"hleJAC" wrote:

Isn’t it wrong to make a distinction between what’s written in the forum and what’s written as a comment on a featured article?

Not at all. It happens everywhere, including political discussion blogs (on sites that champion free speech). And even in the Writer's Workshop (you know, the part of this site that's dedicated to promoting all kinds of writing), there are rules, and many ways that a mod will come along and pull your comments down. For me, I need to see the comment. But if it's anything along the lines of "Shitty interview, dude", then what Dennis did is akin to cleaning up grafitti.

Monkeywright's pretty much saying exactly what I'd post here, if I had the time today (It's my birthday and I'm flying out to NY soon for a few weeks and need to pack and get ready). But he's saying it better than I ever could. How's that for PR? ;)

hleJAC, I respect your morals and stance on censorship, but it's a little naive here, given the circumstances of this website. For now, until you've run a site like this... which yes, unfortunately is a business, please don't lecture me on issues that you perceive to be very black and white. Believe me... after almost 9 years of doing this job, I can tell you that it's never black and white.

Suffice to say, I agree with most of what everyone's saying about the actual piece. Getting interviews with comic creators on this site is such a personal mission for me though that, in my desperation, I'm posting pieces by the one guy who's delivering on this front (Garrett). In the future though, I'm going to start applying a much more firm editing hand.

Ok, I’ll answer monkeywright and Dennis in two separate posts. For more clarity. Hopefully anyway =).

Yes. But this section isn't that section.

I know that. But, with the risk of sounding like Chuck, every time you write you are practicing a form of story telling. Every time you express yourself it’s a self-portrait… So I don’t make the section distinction, if you do that will have to stand for you…

True, but it's also a business. If it wasn't, the whole thing would be free of charge and ad-free. As a business, the site owner can remove and repost what he pleases.

Sure, in that point I totally agree with you and have done so since my first post. Dennis can do exactly as he pleases. But it won’t stop me from giving my opinion on what I considered the best option. I think the difference here is you emphasize the business part, and I emphasize on the writing part and the need to support controversial writing as well as conforming writing in all aspects of the site… Since the business is built around writing, books and authors: that kind of censorship, imo, cripples writing, and is bad PR for the entire site. Again, let me stress this part: in my opinion.

95% of the forums are not geared towards writing, non-conformity, or...well, anything in general. You discuss the author. You discuss his books. You have general discussion, which is a place where the Culties run wild and free. If you have a chance, stop by the fan submission area and read the general population's reaction to most of what comes in. Writing is not encouraged, unless in your language encouraged means mercilessly punished and roundly discouraged. THEN, you have the Writer's Workshop, where all kinds of writing is welcome.The Workshop is the safe haven for expression. And you'll still take an ass-whooping there, though it will actually be constructive.

You are making the distinction that encouragement has to be positive feedback. I don’t. Getting your piece shredded by an angry mob is the entire point of reading your stuff in a sports bar; it will force you to write better. "Mercilessly punished and roundly discouraged" is still not synonym with censorship. I love mercilessly punished, that’s often the best feedback, and that is my case here. I think mercilessly punished should be (allowed to exist, but don’t have to) applied to the featured "flagship" articles too. BTW, mercilessly punished can sum up the treatment of all the main characters in all of Chucks books. End they all evolve with the feedback in each book.

Not at all. It happens everywhere, including political discussion blogs (on sites that champion free speech). And even in the Writer's Workshop (you know, the part of this site that's dedicated to promoting all kinds of writing), there are rules, and many ways that a mod will come along and pull your comments down. For me, I need to see the comment. But if it's anything along the lines of "Shitty interview, dude", then what Dennis did is akin to cleaning up grafitti.

Ok there are several things I disagree with here.

1. That mod’s pull comments down because they don’t obey rules ( flaming, off thread, etc) isn’t something I dispute. Rules are needed to help keep things on track.

2. I agree with you that the absent of the comment, makes it difficult to make a fair judgment. There are many shades of grey, on how much the comment brought to the table and so on, but I still claim that removing an opinion that isn’t personal or off thread or racial or anything against the rules of The Cult or the law then, well, the mix of differences here will be much smaller (people will stop posting challenging comments)… you’ll end up with a bunch of people who all think alike with no friction and none of you will ever evolve… the gene pool will become static.

3. Again, we differ on our views on graffiti. It’s the timeless high culture versus low culture debate. I personally don’t think graffiti is less of an art form than writing. Just like I think every interview, from here on, should contain the question: "when was the last time you got a piece of ass?" Haha, I loved that one.

Dennis, first of all, I won’t shut up. Only way I’ll stop speaking my mind is if you censor me. Or if you disable my ability to post comments... a risk I’m more than willing to take. As I said earlier I love the Cult a lot, but I hate censorship much, much more. And even if you disable my commenting ability here, I will continue to speak my mind, on the specific issue, on my blog. The great thing with the Internet is that it makes censorship difficult.

Second of all, you are being a little ambiguous. First you tell me you respect my morals and stance on censorship and then you ask me not to lecture you… That doesn’t sound very respectful to me. If people who don’t have your opinion shouldn’t speak their mind, well that is very bad PR for any site imo. I have never claimed to be lecturing no one, and if bringing arguments and suggestions for improvement (or what I consider improvement) is your perception of lecturing, I would be more than glad to be lectured by you, just as I have been lectured by monkeywright (but since he holds your opinions I guess you don’t call it lecturing…)

Then you play the authority-card: that since I don’t run a site like The Cult and don’t have 9 years of experience I can’t possibly have anything constructive to bring to the table.

It’s like being in a debate about feminism with a woman and instead of good arguments, being told that since you are not a woman you can’t understand the issue and you should just shut up and agree with it.

I was born in Iran. My parents fled the most oppressing government on earth. I have relatives who been executed because of opinions they have expressed. You have 9 years experience hosting a site? I have a lifetime… no, I have generations of experience dealing with censorship and the arguments for and against it.

Right now you and the league of similar thinking people on this site are thinking: "HOW DRAMATIC!!! It’s not the same thing at all!!" My response: thinking censorship with business arguments, like PR, behind them are any different from the censorship Iran, China or Cuba implement is not just a little naïve…

But I do understand things aren’t black and white, that there are different shades of grey… and since I never saw the deleted comment, it’s hard to tell what shade of grey it was…

Anyway, I have never disagreed about this being your site or about your authority: you can run things anyway you like, only reason I came with an opinion is because your (or what I perceived as your) ambiguity with the first comment: apologizing for removing the comment while claiming it needs to be done…

The only reason I spent my time and energy writing a reply, forming a case against censorship, is because I thought you actually wanted feedback on the comment-deleting.

The Cult is, hands down the best author resource there is(!), it’s because I like the site so god damn much that I bothered writing the posts…

Only reason I wrote, was because it’s an issue that comes close to my heart, an issue I hold important, and because I like The Cult so much, I thought I would share my thoughts on best practices for that issue…

If I had known you only wanted to hear unison voices telling you what you wanted to hear, that of course you can delete any comment any time you see fit, I wouldn’t bothered writing…

If I had known, you only accepted deviant opinions from other people who own business-like-writing-community- sites, with a minimum of 9 years of experience; I wouldn’t given any feedback.

as is this talk of conformity. probably even more so than the censorship issue.

dennis can do as he likes and i think its probably the right decision. i, personally, dont much care for this interview or interviewer but it sounds like the original post was pointless and a bit asshole-ish. that is, if it really did just say something like 'shitty interview'. that helps no one and says little.

his first post wasn't just a "shitty interview" comment and that was it. He had a good paragraph or two explaining why he thought it was shitty.

Anyways, i think this whole "censorship" thing is really a distracting tangent to the real issue of getting good quality interviews on here. If censorship was a real issue then you wouldn't see threads all over here with people saying how much they didn't like a particular chuck book.

Sorry I used the word 'censorship', Dennis. Wasn't actually trying to make a real big point there.

Only, the original post wasn't actually that bad I thought. There were arguments in it. It was more than just profanity. If I remember correctly, at least. At the time I was just surprised that that comment wasn't 'allowed' as it seemed. The fact that it totally 'disappeared' without a trace, was actually the one thing that made me comment about it. That kind of bothered me a bit. If you deleted it like with 'this post was deleted, because....', I probably wouldn't have said a thing.

But nice discussion though. I think we all love eachother a little more :-)

If it's any help in clearing up the "censorship" issue or what have you--I, the Tim, Dennis mentioned from the deleted post more or less reposted my thoughts about this interview earlier. I made changes that deleted language such as "what is this bullshit" and maybe another form of the word "shit" among other points that were thought out He did not prevent me from reposting, he made a choice about something on his site and I reposted my own thoughts with more or less of the original content. Let's let it be already, okay?

Really, let's keep this in perspective, it's an interview that needed work and was embarssing to read because of questions that were amateurish and unprepared.

Maybe instead of asking about sex and misdeeds, ask: "Do you do any type of retailer outreach with your creator owned book Criminal?" That kind of question might be more useful to a site geared towards writers who may in the future consider some form of self-publishing.

It's not about hero worship, but about a level of respect that wasn't present in this interview. If that's the approach that the contributor feels works, so be it. That tactic will only get you so far.

There are many fine interviews out there with Ed Brubaker, I suggest reading one of those if you're interested in the guy's work.

i don't think there's anything wrong with asking sex and misdeed questions. it's just from what you read before, it sounds like the guy is pretty much a family man and it seems so out of place to ask [i]him[/i] that. however, if you're interviewing someone else that's probably younger and a little more wild, a question like that would seem to fit better.

I know that. But, with the risk of sounding like Chuck, every time you write you are practicing a form of story telling. Every time you express yourself it’s a self-portrait… So I don’t make the section distinction, if you do that will have to stand for you…

I would say this rule of writing applies to 0.00002% of people who post here. They're not making self-portraits, they're spouiting off whatever's on the top of their minds

"hleJAC" wrote:

You are making the distinction that encouragement has to be positive feedback. I don’t. Getting your piece shredded by an angry mob is the entire point of reading your stuff in a sports bar; it will force you to write better. "Mercilessly punished and roundly discouraged" is still not synonym with censorship. I love mercilessly punished, that’s often the best feedback, and that is my case here. I think mercilessly punished should be (allowed to exist, but don’t have to) applied to the featured "flagship" articles too. BTW, mercilessly punished can sum up the treatment of all the main characters in all of Chucks books. End they all evolve with the feedback in each book.

No I'm not. I'm saying good criticism, even if harsh and negative, is ALWAYS constructive. A writer should be able to learn from his mistakes, and criticism is how it's done. A bunch of replies to a poem or story posted (ie "You suck" "Meh, I'm not going to read this" "You can't write for shit") doesn't force you to get better. If you pandered to those comments and tried to win those people over, you're not learning anything as a writer. I think Spanbauer's sports bar exercise is more about being unafraid of your personal voice and learning what it feels like to expose your mind to the public. The reaction of the bar patrons is moot, and certainly not intended as criticism. It's an exercise in bravery to help you grow as a writer, nothing more.

"hleJAC" wrote:

you’ll end up with a bunch of people who all think alike with no friction and none of you will ever evolve… the gene pool will become static.

This will never never never happen here.

"hleJAC" wrote:

3. Again, we differ on our views on graffiti. It’s the timeless high culture versus low culture debate. I personally don’t think graffiti is less of an art form than writing. Just like I think every interview, from here on, should contain the question: "when was the last time you got a piece of ass?" Haha, I loved that one.

The difference is - I don't want graffitti on my house. You can put it there, and I can paint over it. It's MY house.

Again, the questions might all work as a solid interview, but they need to be edited and condensed. Can he ask about getting ass? Of course! But the whole piece is scattershot, first draft quality and there's no flow between questions. Something the interviewer can easily fix himself while compiling the piece.

monkeywright: I'm glad you wrote that second reply. It widened my perspective somewhat. I do agree with most of the things you are saying. Mainly because in that reply you are leaning towards the other end of the grey-shades-color-spectrum: that the comment was not constructive at all… While I was leaning more towards that it was somewhat constructive. And even though I’m not where you are 100 percent in reasoning, I’ll contemplate what you've said...

Anyway, what I do agree with 100 % is the compiling being the main problem of the interview piece and not its juvenile questions. It does really hold first draft quality.

There is one point I don’t agree with at all (cou-third-gh), but since the general consensus seems to be to focus on the interview and letting the other issue be. I’ll let it be.

Important Disclaimer: Although this is Chuck Palahniuk’s official website, we are in essence, more an official ‘fansite.’ Chuck Palahniuk himself does not own nor run this website. Nor did he create it. It was started by Dennis Widmyer, who is the webmaster and editor of most of the content. Chuck Palahniuk himself should not be held accountable nor liable for any of the content posted on this website. The opinions expressed in the news updates, content pages and message boards are not the opinions of Chuck Palahniuk nor his publishers. If you are trying to contact Chuck Palahniuk, sending emails to this website will not get you there. You should instead, take the more professional route of contacting his publicist at Doubleday.